Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops. Vol. 1
Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops. Vol. 1
Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops. Vol. 1
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Most agricultural chemicals have been developed <strong>and</strong> rates determined using<br />
high-volume spraying techniques. In low volume spraying, maintenance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dosage rate is important to avoid loss <strong>of</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> the chemical. McArtney <strong>and</strong><br />
Hughes (1992) discuss the importance <strong>of</strong> maintaining a constant product rate per<br />
hectare while reducing water volumes. This means that tank concentrations are<br />
increased which could increase the risk <strong>of</strong> phytotoxicity through excess deposition<br />
<strong>of</strong> spray, or failure <strong>of</strong> the spray through insufficient spray deposited.<br />
With the advent <strong>of</strong> CDA machines in the 1970’s which were able to produce<br />
droplets within the 60–100 µm range, there was a marked reduction in both spray<br />
drift <strong>and</strong> the loss associated with large droplets. Several machines had the capability<br />
<strong>of</strong> conforming closely to this range <strong>and</strong> utilised spinning discs or rotary<br />
cages to produce a consistent range <strong>of</strong> droplets. Further, droplet size could be<br />
adjusted by altering flow rates <strong>and</strong> pressure. This allowed the alteration <strong>of</strong> spray<br />
application when needed, for instance, under warm spraying conditions in some<br />
countries it is advisable to increase droplet mean diameter to allow for evaporation<br />
effects.<br />
5.3.1. Application <strong>of</strong> CDA technology<br />
Spray Technology in Perennial Tree <strong>Crops</strong> 97<br />
Work with CDA machines in Australian orchards in the 1980’s demonstrated that<br />
they were at least as biologically effective at 200 L/ha as an air-blast sprayer at 6000<br />
L/ha (Oakford et al., 1991). Further trials with both Micron <strong>and</strong> Micronair CDA<br />
machines showed that ultralow volumes as low as 25 L/ha were capable <strong>of</strong> producing<br />
results similar to high volume applications (Oakford et al., 1994a). However,<br />
spinning discs <strong>and</strong> rotary atomisers were not robust, <strong>and</strong> were subject to frequent<br />
breakdowns <strong>and</strong> damage. This combined with the almost invisible output at ultralow<br />
volumes meant orchardists were reluctant to accept this large technological change<br />
in spray application, hence uptake <strong>of</strong> ULV spraying in orchards has been slow,<br />
particularly in Australia <strong>and</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong> where tree size tends to be larger than<br />
in the UK.<br />
5.3.2. Application <strong>of</strong> airshear technology<br />
Airshear technology, which works on the principle <strong>of</strong> high air velocity (282–370<br />
km/hr) <strong>and</strong> low liquid pressures (68-170 kPa) has proved to be more popular, at least<br />
in Australia, than CDA technology. These machines are more robust, utilising high<br />
speed turbine fans to produce droplets in the 50–130 µm range. While not producing<br />
as concise a range <strong>of</strong> droplet sizes as the spinning disc or rotary cage atomisers,<br />
Oakford et al. (1994b, 1995) demonstrated that airshear sprayers were superior to<br />
air-blast sprayers using high pressure hydraulic nozzles. Experiments in Australia<br />
by Oakford et al. (1995) using airshear have shown that at volumes <strong>of</strong> 200 L/ha<br />
the chemical dosage rate could be reduced by 25%. Oakford et al. (1994b) reported<br />
that reducing the output volume from 200 to 100 L/ha significantly depressed the<br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the airshear machine, however Oakford et al. (1995) found 100 L/ha<br />
as effective as 200 L/ha. These authors also reported a marked fall <strong>of</strong>f in<br />
performance at 800 L/ha. With higher water volumes, airshear nozzles lose their